Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Calling flag burning "speech" is ridiculous. It's just another Leftist distortion of the plain meaning of words. With Trump's new appointments to SCOTUS some sanity may return

Trump spokesman Jason Miller told CNN this morning that flag-burning is not constitutionally protected speech. "Flag burning should be illegal," Miller said. "The president-elect is a very strong supporter of the First Amendment, but there's a big difference between that and burning the American flag."

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag-burning was free speech protected by the First Amendment. The latter case ruled that a congressional bill to ban torching the Stars and Stripes was unconstitutional.

Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who referred to himself as an "originalist," defended the right to burn the American flag.

"If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag -- however, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged -- and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government," Scalia told CNN in 2012.

"I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress," he added. "Burning the flag is a form of expression -- speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words -- burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. 'I hate the government, the government is unjust,' or whatever."

Calling flag burning "speech" is ridiculous. It's just another Leftist distortion of the plain meaning of words.

It is interesting that Mr.. Ray's stance on this is contrary to the Texas v. Johnson (1989) case cited in the article, a portion of which he himself quotes on the sidebar:

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

Additionally, the men who wrote he Bill of Rights were well aware of the meaning of "speech" and associated actions to convey messages. After all, burning the King or local governors was against many colonial laws yet that is what happened to convey an idea.

There are many Americans who believe that the flag should be protected and certainly they have the right to believe and argue that point. However, the Constitution protects others from their beliefs becoming actions against protected speech.

Scalia was right, while abhorrent to most Americans flag burning is an expression of free speech. Trumps is also right, he and most Americans want it criminalized. The needed detail is that you have a right to burn your personally owned American flag but law enforcement can then check to make sure that you are in compliance with all the often conflicting laws in the United States and enforce those you are not in compliance with.

I'm a patriotic American and veteran. I hate the idea of people living in the U.S. desecrating the U.S. Flag.

But I hate it mostly not just because it's a symbol of my country (haters gonna hate), but because it's one of the most in-your-face forms of hypocrisy. People who burn the flag are burning the symbol of the very thing that allows them to burn the flag! It's basically stating that you hate the country that's given you the freedoms that you're currently abusing.

That said, I don't think flag burning should be banned. That's what dictators do. Where does it stop? Should we make illegal to burn the constitution? After all... it, too, is a symbol of our country. Should we make it illegal to burn a photo of our dear leader, POTUS, who (like him or not) is the head of our Executive Branch? How about speaking out against the government? Can we ban that, too?

That said, I also believe that those who burn the flag are fair game to non-governmental retribution. If I'm your employer and I catch you burning the flag, you won't be my employee much longer. If identify you working in a business you won't see my business any more. You want to sit down during the National Anthem... guess which team just got boycotted?

But to any would-be flag-burner I say: The nice thing about America is the door is always open. The exit door...

Burning the flag is a physical act - an "expression" - not "speech". Many countries have a right to free expression and speech, until it becomes particularly noxious.

Although they may have that right, they don't know what they themselves are promoting while doing it. "People who burn the flag are burning the symbol of the very thing that allows them to burn the flag!". Pure hypocrisy by flag burners.

By your reasoning, publishing a newspaper is not speech, it is an expression. Wearing a t-shirt with an image on it is not speech, it is an expression. By your reasoning the government could shut down a protest because it is an expression and not speech. An artist could be told to stop or arrested for painting a picture critical of the government because that is not speech, but expression.

The list goes on and on.

As to "pure hypocrisy by the flag burners," the same point could be made against those who seek to criminalize the burning of the flag. If the flag stands for freedom, why oppress the act? To me that seems hypocritical as well.

The first amendment is not there to protect popular speech, but speech that is unpopular. If we allow mob rule to determining what is acceptable speech and actions (assuming they do not harm anyone) we have abandoned the principles of America.

I understand the opposition to the burning of the flag. (And I am against it's burning, but know it to be protected speech.)

To people in the military, it is a symbol. When stationed in foreign lands, it is a symbol of home. When a sailor sees the flag flying from the mast, he sees the freedom in which we believe. Color guards and standard bearers in the military are the best people in the outfit. There is a pride in being chosen for that job. At the same time, there was a time when "rally 'round the flag boys" truly meant something.

But in the end, the flag is a piece of cloth, just as my Bible is a bunch of printed words on wood pulp. The veneration of the flag comes from within - not from without.

It is what the flag stands for that is important. The ideals of freedom - including the right to express unpopular ideas - lives not in that cloth, but in my heart. People could burn every flag in the country and I would still stand for and hold dear the United States and the ideals upon which it was founded.

We can't say "we believe in freedom" and then say "we want to oppress people that exercise freedom."

Reading most of the comments above has reinforced my view of this website.Most people here actually believe in an support the First Amendment - even when JJR the site administrator does not.Of course flag burning is protected speech. There is no act more obviously an expression of political communication, no act more likely to offend, and hence no act more deserving of protection under the First.Bravo to all those who stand in its support.

It might be difficult to define what is the flag being burned, as the slightest variation made to it by the flag-burner, could be used to claim it was not actually the official US flag, and therefore no offence had been committed. Then it would be the difficulty of legally defining how much variation and in what way before the flag in question can still be regarded as the US flag and that an offence had been committed. Just saying, well it looked like the US flag could be challenged in court, and it is the flag-burning that is the issue and not the flag-burner's other behavior and statements.

Anon 4:51: "If the flag stands for freedom, why oppress the act? To me that seems hypocritical as well."

If the flag stands for freedom of expression, why burn the flag? There's the hypocrisy. I never said I'd want to oppress the act, but those engaging in it should see how college-student stupid they look. It's like crapping their own bed because they can, which they should IMO.

Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Mohammad

The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"

One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn

Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here